Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer [either] Frank Swiderski wrote: > We know that the license is on a binary basis
No. The MPL license covers individual source code files, not binary blobs. http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1-annotated.html As long as they make available per MPL the files that were/are under MPL (libxul + any MPL'd headers they use), they should be able to satisfy their obligations. mkaply wrote: > The MPL is not a viral license. As mkaply notes, files that #include MPL'd files are not directly affected by MPL. Copying chunks from an MPL header file into another file of course is a different story. wrt the build environment, this is typically done either by adding a directory to extensions/[x] and then using --enable-extensions=x or by changing something parent makefile to have DIRS += x If they change a makefile and the makefile is MPL, they'd have to make that makefile available, but not the makefile in x/. example: mozilla/Makefile.in + DIRS += example ^ this change would need to be published mozilla/example/Makefile.in ^ this file would not need to be published merely because it's referenced by mozilla/Makefile.in mozilla/example/hasIExample.idl #include "nsISupports.idl" ^ this file would not need to be published merely because it includes nsISupports.idl objdir/example/_xpidlgen/hasIExample.xpt ^ this generated file will probably need to be shipped because without it the product would probably not function, but to the extent it has a license, it has a license based on hasIExample.idl and not xpidl. objdir/example/Makefile ^ this generated file should not need to be published or shipped, to the extent it has a license, it has the license based on mozilla/example/Makefile.in and not make-makefile.sh (or whichever part of our build system converts Makefile.in's to Makefiles) _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
